dh@. wrote:

> The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be considered a
> truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us that life still has
> positive value to them

Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once they
exist. You need to read Salt's essay again, not that you will understand it.

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700
Dutch > wrote:
> dh@. wrote:
>
>> The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be
>> considered a truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us
>> that life still has positive value to them

It doesn't have to be a "positive" value. People can be motivated by
negative values too ("revenge" could be an example).

> Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once they
> exist.

That's a logical point.

> You need to read Salt's essay again, not that you will understand it.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid
of spiritual things, but - more frequently than not - struggles against
the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God."
-- Martin Luther (1533)

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:43:26 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
goddess" > wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700
>Dutch > wrote:
>> dh@. wrote:
>>
>>> The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be
>>> considered a truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us
>>> that life still has positive value to them
>
>It doesn't have to be a "positive" value. People can be motivated by
>negative values too ("revenge" could be an example).

It's still positive in respect that they want to continue living.

>> Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once they
>> exist.
>
>That's a logical point.

It's a useless thing for anyone to ever make a point of except for the fact
that I made a mistake in terminology about a decade ago and some people referred
to as the goos still dishonestly insist that I believe unconceived potential
future "beings" can somehow "suffer a loss" if "they" never experience life.
It's a lie, though I do consider the possibility that there could be multiple
lives somehow. I don't have a true belief, but do NOT believe unconceived
potential beings experience any sort of loss for not being born as livestock.
That doesn't mean I can't appreciate it when they are and experience decent
lives of positive value TO THEM. Eliminationists can't afford to consider that
aspect of human influence on animals, but anyone who favors decent AW over
elimination certainly should both consider and appreciate it. Appreciation for
that aspect is something eliminationists are opposed to, as you can see by the
goos' behavior. There are three goos, which include Goo himself, his boy "Dutch"
and his boy "Derek". In this thread we only have Goo and "Dutch", both of whom
are maniacally opposed to taking decent lives of livestock into consideration.
"Dutch" claims to have tried it once, and it made him feel "dirty". It made him
feel dirty to have appreciation for lives of positive value for the animals he
claims to consume. That's one of the ways he reveals that he does NOT favor AW
over elimination.

dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:43:26 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
> goddess" > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700
>> Dutch > wrote:
>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>> The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be
>>>> considered a truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us
>>>> that life still has positive value to them
>>
>> It doesn't have to be a "positive" value. People can be motivated by
>> negative values too ("revenge" could be an example).
>
> It's still positive in respect that they want to continue living.
>
>>> Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once they
>>> exist.
>>
>> That's a logical point.
>
> It's a useless thing for anyone to ever make a point of except for the fact
> that I made a mistake in terminology about a decade ago

It is not a mistake in terminology, it is a fundamental error in logic
which persists in your arguments to this day.

and some people referred
> to as the goos still dishonestly insist that I believe unconceived potential
> future "beings" can somehow "suffer a loss" if "they" never experience life.
> It's a lie, though I do consider the possibility that there could be multiple
> lives somehow. I don't have a true belief, but do NOT believe unconceived
> potential beings experience any sort of loss for not being born as livestock.
> That doesn't mean I can't appreciate it when they are and experience decent
> lives of positive value TO THEM. Eliminationists can't afford to consider that
> aspect of human influence on animals, but anyone who favors decent AW over
> elimination certainly should both consider and appreciate it. Appreciation for
> that aspect is something eliminationists are opposed to, as you can see by the
> goos' behavior. There are three goos, which include Goo himself, his boy "Dutch"
> and his boy "Derek". In this thread we only have Goo and "Dutch", both of whom
> are maniacally opposed to taking decent lives of livestock into consideration.
> "Dutch" claims to have tried it once, and it made him feel "dirty". It made him
> feel dirty to have appreciation for lives of positive value for the animals he
> claims to consume. That's one of the ways he reveals that he does NOT favor AW
> over elimination.

That's a lie, and you KNOW it, both of us favor continuing to raise
livestock (over the elimination of livestock) AND we both favor the
provision of good welfare over the neglect or abuse of animals (TWO
separate and distinct choices)

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:00 -0700
Dutch > wrote:
> dh@. wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:43:26 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the
> > non-existent atheist goddess" > wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700
> >> Dutch > wrote:
> >>> dh@. wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be
> >>>> considered a truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us
> >>>> that life still has positive value to them
> >>
> >> It doesn't have to be a "positive" value. People can be motivated
> >> by negative values too ("revenge" could be an example).
> >
> > It's still positive in respect that they want to continue
> > living.
> >
> >>> Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once
> >>> they exist.
> >>
> >> That's a logical point.
> >
> > It's a useless thing for anyone to ever make a point of except
> > for the fact that I made a mistake in terminology about a decade ago
>
> It is not a mistake in terminology, it is a fundamental error in
> logic which persists in your arguments to this day.
>
> and some people referred
> > to as the goos still dishonestly insist that I believe unconceived
> > potential future "beings" can somehow "suffer a loss" if "they"
> > never experience life. It's a lie, though I do consider the
> > possibility that there could be multiple lives somehow. I don't
> > have a true belief, but do NOT believe unconceived potential beings
> > experience any sort of loss for not being born as livestock. That
> > doesn't mean I can't appreciate it when they are and experience
> > decent lives of positive value TO THEM. Eliminationists can't
> > afford to consider that aspect of human influence on animals, but
> > anyone who favors decent AW over elimination certainly should both
> > consider and appreciate it. Appreciation for that aspect is
> > something eliminationists are opposed to, as you can see by the
> > goos' behavior. There are three goos, which include Goo himself,
> > his boy "Dutch" and his boy "Derek". In this thread we only have
> > Goo and "Dutch", both of whom are maniacally opposed to taking
> > decent lives of livestock into consideration. "Dutch" claims to
> > have tried it once, and it made him feel "dirty". It made him feel
> > dirty to have appreciation for lives of positive value for the
> > animals he claims to consume. That's one of the ways he reveals
> > that he does NOT favor AW over elimination.
>
> That's a lie, and you KNOW it, both of us favor continuing to raise
> livestock (over the elimination of livestock) AND we both favor the
> provision of good welfare over the neglect or abuse of animals (TWO
> separate and distinct choices)

I think it's pretty obvious that there's a consensus in the value of
Animal Welfare.

I wonder if things may have gotten off track also because there's may
be a hint of various perceptions of cannibalism that are subconsciously
being applied to eating animals. Although cannibalism is generally
regarded as a horrific practice by many people who are not familiar
with it, there are some societies that value it as an important
practice because it frees the deceased's spirit from limbo, making it
possible to progress to some notion of an afterlife (or reincarnation).

(Interestingly, some cannibalistic tribes have been known to not eat
their enemies as a means of punishment that prevents them from
progressing where they might continue to wage war against their fallen
brethren.)

The fact is that humans are natural predators, and eating meat is a
normal life experience for most people. The problem is that many food
animals are raised and slaughtered without regard for their comfort
and pain, which I suspect is the crux of the issue.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"I'm playing for my life. You're working for money."
-- Charles Milles Manson

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:00 -0700
> Dutch > wrote:
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:43:26 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the
>>> non-existent atheist goddess" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700
>>>> Dutch > wrote:
>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be
>>>>>> considered a truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us
>>>>>> that life still has positive value to them
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't have to be a "positive" value. People can be motivated
>>>> by negative values too ("revenge" could be an example).
>>>
>>> It's still positive in respect that they want to continue
>>> living.
>>>
>>>>> Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once
>>>>> they exist.
>>>>
>>>> That's a logical point.
>>>
>>> It's a useless thing for anyone to ever make a point of except
>>> for the fact that I made a mistake in terminology about a decade ago
>>
>> It is not a mistake in terminology, it is a fundamental error in
>> logic which persists in your arguments to this day.
>>
>> and some people referred
>>> to as the goos still dishonestly insist that I believe unconceived
>>> potential future "beings" can somehow "suffer a loss" if "they"
>>> never experience life. It's a lie, though I do consider the
>>> possibility that there could be multiple lives somehow. I don't
>>> have a true belief, but do NOT believe unconceived potential beings
>>> experience any sort of loss for not being born as livestock. That
>>> doesn't mean I can't appreciate it when they are and experience
>>> decent lives of positive value TO THEM. Eliminationists can't
>>> afford to consider that aspect of human influence on animals, but
>>> anyone who favors decent AW over elimination certainly should both
>>> consider and appreciate it. Appreciation for that aspect is
>>> something eliminationists are opposed to, as you can see by the
>>> goos' behavior. There are three goos, which include Goo himself,
>>> his boy "Dutch" and his boy "Derek". In this thread we only have
>>> Goo and "Dutch", both of whom are maniacally opposed to taking
>>> decent lives of livestock into consideration. "Dutch" claims to
>>> have tried it once, and it made him feel "dirty". It made him feel
>>> dirty to have appreciation for lives of positive value for the
>>> animals he claims to consume. That's one of the ways he reveals
>>> that he does NOT favor AW over elimination.
>>
>> That's a lie, and you KNOW it, both of us favor continuing to raise
>> livestock (over the elimination of livestock) AND we both favor the
>> provision of good welfare over the neglect or abuse of animals (TWO
>> separate and distinct choices)
>
> I think it's pretty obvious that there's a consensus in the value of
> Animal Welfare.
>
> I wonder if things may have gotten off track also because there's may
> be a hint of various perceptions of cannibalism that are subconsciously
> being applied to eating animals. Although cannibalism is generally
> regarded as a horrific practice by many people who are not familiar
> with it, there are some societies that value it as an important
> practice because it frees the deceased's spirit from limbo, making it
> possible to progress to some notion of an afterlife (or reincarnation).
>
> (Interestingly, some cannibalistic tribes have been known to not eat
> their enemies as a means of punishment that prevents them from
> progressing where they might continue to wage war against their fallen
> brethren.)
>
> The fact is that humans are natural predators, and eating meat is a
> normal life experience for most people. The problem is that many food
> animals are raised and slaughtered without regard for their comfort
> and pain, which I suspect is the crux of the issue.

I agree with everything you said, except that animal welfare is not part
of the issue in the debate between dh@ and everyone else. He tries to
make it appear that it is, but that's just one of his smokescreens. The
crux if his position is that users of animals and animal products should
take pride in the fact that those animals "get to experience life" and
conversely vegans ("eliminationists") as he calls them) do not sponsor
animals getting to experience life. Also anyone who rejects his nonsense
is labelled as an "eliminationist".

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:39:09 -0700
Dutch > wrote:
> Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:00 -0700
> > Dutch > wrote:
> >> dh@. wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:43:26 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the
> >>> non-existent atheist goddess" > wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700
> >>>> Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>> dh@. wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The fact that people who don't feel they have what
> >>>>>> could be considered a truly "good" life don't all kill
> >>>>>> themselves tells us that life still has positive value to them
> >>>>
> >>>> It doesn't have to be a "positive" value. People can be
> >>>> motivated by negative values too ("revenge" could be an example).
> >>>
> >>> It's still positive in respect that they want to continue
> >>> living.
> >>>
> >>>>> Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once
> >>>>> they exist.
> >>>>
> >>>> That's a logical point.
> >>>
> >>> It's a useless thing for anyone to ever make a point of
> >>> except for the fact that I made a mistake in terminology about a
> >>> decade ago
> >>
> >> It is not a mistake in terminology, it is a fundamental error in
> >> logic which persists in your arguments to this day.
> >>
> >> and some people referred
> >>> to as the goos still dishonestly insist that I believe unconceived
> >>> potential future "beings" can somehow "suffer a loss" if "they"
> >>> never experience life. It's a lie, though I do consider the
> >>> possibility that there could be multiple lives somehow. I don't
> >>> have a true belief, but do NOT believe unconceived potential
> >>> beings experience any sort of loss for not being born as
> >>> livestock. That doesn't mean I can't appreciate it when they are
> >>> and experience decent lives of positive value TO THEM.
> >>> Eliminationists can't afford to consider that aspect of human
> >>> influence on animals, but anyone who favors decent AW over
> >>> elimination certainly should both consider and appreciate it.
> >>> Appreciation for that aspect is something eliminationists are
> >>> opposed to, as you can see by the goos' behavior. There are three
> >>> goos, which include Goo himself, his boy "Dutch" and his boy
> >>> "Derek". In this thread we only have Goo and "Dutch", both of
> >>> whom are maniacally opposed to taking decent lives of livestock
> >>> into consideration. "Dutch" claims to have tried it once, and it
> >>> made him feel "dirty". It made him feel dirty to have
> >>> appreciation for lives of positive value for the animals he
> >>> claims to consume. That's one of the ways he reveals that he does
> >>> NOT favor AW over elimination.
> >>
> >> That's a lie, and you KNOW it, both of us favor continuing to raise
> >> livestock (over the elimination of livestock) AND we both favor the
> >> provision of good welfare over the neglect or abuse of animals (TWO
> >> separate and distinct choices)
> >
> > I think it's pretty obvious that there's a consensus in the value of
> > Animal Welfare.
> >
> > I wonder if things may have gotten off track also because there's
> > may be a hint of various perceptions of cannibalism that are
> > subconsciously being applied to eating animals. Although
> > cannibalism is generally regarded as a horrific practice by many
> > people who are not familiar with it, there are some societies that
> > value it as an important practice because it frees the deceased's
> > spirit from limbo, making it possible to progress to some notion of
> > an afterlife (or reincarnation).
> >
> > (Interestingly, some cannibalistic tribes have been known to not eat
> > their enemies as a means of punishment that prevents them from
> > progressing where they might continue to wage war against their
> > fallen brethren.)
> >
> > The fact is that humans are natural predators, and eating meat is a
> > normal life experience for most people. The problem is that many
> > food animals are raised and slaughtered without regard for their
> > comfort and pain, which I suspect is the crux of the issue.
>
> I agree with everything you said, except that animal welfare is not
> part of the issue in the debate between dh@ and everyone else. He
> tries to make it appear that it is, but that's just one of his
> smokescreens. The crux if his position is that users of animals and
> animal products should take pride in the fact that those animals "get
> to experience life" and conversely vegans ("eliminationists") as he
> calls them) do not sponsor animals getting to experience life. Also
> anyone who rejects his nonsense is labelled as an "eliminationist".

I don't see the need for taking pride in that, because the life
experience is merely incidental to being alive regardless of the
duration of one's life. I'm interested in learning more about the
motivations behind this expectation of taking pride in this way.

The "idea" that "those who don't consume animal products aren't
contributing directly" is a bit of a misnomer (I'm not pointing the
finger here, but just examining the idea for its own merits), for an
indirect contribution as a result of less demand for meat products is
logically expected to reduce the overall number of food animals being
raised for slaughter. The assumed causal effect is that fewer animals
should be mistreated in the context of fewer animals being raised for
slaughter, which is central to the total number of animals (based on
basic overall population counts) rather than a percentage (based on the intrinsic habits/policies of handlers).

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Unfortunately, the people of Louisiana are not racists."
-- Dan Quayle

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:39:09 -0700, Dutch > wrote:

>Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
>
>> The fact is that humans are natural predators, and eating meat is a
>> normal life experience for most people. The problem is that many food
>> animals are raised and slaughtered without regard for their comfort
>> and pain, which I suspect is the crux of the issue.
>
>I agree with everything you said, except that animal welfare is not part
>of the issue in the debate between dh@ and everyone else. He tries to
>make it appear that it is, but that's just one of his smokescreens.

That's a blatant lie since I refer to animals who have lives of negative
value as well as those of positive value.

>The
>crux if his position is that users of animals and animal products should
>take pride in the fact that those animals "get to experience life"

Try presenting some example of me telling people they should take pride in
it. You can't meaning that you lied again, which is pretty much what you do. I
DO encourage people to give the animals' lives as much or more consideration
than their deaths though, which eliminationists hate because and only because
doing so works against the elimination objective.

>and
>conversely vegans ("eliminationists") as he calls them) do not sponsor
>animals getting to experience life.

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:

tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings

The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 17:50:57 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
goddess" > wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:00 -0700
>Dutch > wrote:
>> dh@. wrote:
>> > On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:43:26 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the
>> > non-existent atheist goddess" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700
>> >> Dutch > wrote:
>> >>> dh@. wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be
>> >>>> considered a truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us
>> >>>> that life still has positive value to them
>> >>
>> >> It doesn't have to be a "positive" value. People can be motivated
>> >> by negative values too ("revenge" could be an example).
>> >
>> > It's still positive in respect that they want to continue
>> > living.
>> >
>> >>> Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once
>> >>> they exist.
>> >>
>> >> That's a logical point.
>> >
>> > It's a useless thing for anyone to ever make a point of except
>> > for the fact that I made a mistake in terminology about a decade ago
>>
>> It is not a mistake in terminology, it is a fundamental error in
>> logic which persists in your arguments to this day.
>>
>> and some people referred
>> > to as the goos still dishonestly insist that I believe unconceived
>> > potential future "beings" can somehow "suffer a loss" if "they"
>> > never experience life. It's a lie, though I do consider the
>> > possibility that there could be multiple lives somehow. I don't
>> > have a true belief, but do NOT believe unconceived potential beings
>> > experience any sort of loss for not being born as livestock. That
>> > doesn't mean I can't appreciate it when they are and experience
>> > decent lives of positive value TO THEM. Eliminationists can't
>> > afford to consider that aspect of human influence on animals, but
>> > anyone who favors decent AW over elimination certainly should both
>> > consider and appreciate it. Appreciation for that aspect is
>> > something eliminationists are opposed to, as you can see by the
>> > goos' behavior. There are three goos, which include Goo himself,
>> > his boy "Dutch" and his boy "Derek". In this thread we only have
>> > Goo and "Dutch", both of whom are maniacally opposed to taking
>> > decent lives of livestock into consideration. "Dutch" claims to
>> > have tried it once, and it made him feel "dirty". It made him feel
>> > dirty to have appreciation for lives of positive value for the
>> > animals he claims to consume. That's one of the ways he reveals
>> > that he does NOT favor AW over elimination.
>>
>> That's a lie, and you KNOW it, both of us favor continuing to raise
>> livestock (over the elimination of livestock) AND we both favor the
>> provision of good welfare over the neglect or abuse of animals (TWO
>> separate and distinct choices)
>
>I think it's pretty obvious that there's a consensus in the value of
>Animal Welfare.

>I wonder if things may have gotten off track also because there's may
>be a hint of various perceptions of cannibalism that are subconsciously
>being applied to eating animals. Although cannibalism is generally
>regarded as a horrific practice by many people who are not familiar
>with it, there are some societies that value it as an important
>practice because it frees the deceased's spirit from limbo, making it
>possible to progress to some notion of an afterlife (or reincarnation).
>
>(Interestingly, some cannibalistic tribes have been known to not eat
>their enemies as a means of punishment that prevents them from
>progressing where they might continue to wage war against their fallen
>brethren.)
>
>The fact is that humans are natural predators, and eating meat is a
>normal life experience for most people. The problem is that many food
>animals are raised and slaughtered without regard for their comfort
>and pain, which I suspect is the crux of the issue.

Many of them have decent lives of positive value too, and imo the majority
of them do. Eliminationists are opposed to us taking those lives into
consideration though because providing billions of livestock animals with lives
of positive value works against the elimination objective. Nothing would be
worse for eliminationists than for all animals raised for food to have lives of
positive value and humane deaths, and for their consumers to be aware of it.
What could work against their hopes for elimination any more than that? Those
people not only are incapable of distinguishing between lives that seem to be of
negative value and those which seem to be of positive, but they're incapable of
recognising any livestock lives at all that appear to be of positive value. In
the following list of URLs most if not all of the animals pictured appear to
have lives of positive value imo, yet eliminationists can't recognise a single
one that appears to be of positive value to them. Can you?

http://www.agrabilityproject.org/ima...ge002_0015.jpg
http://www.karlschatz.com/yearoftheg...es/skyland.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2305/...b1a8025730.jpg
http://www.quailhunt.net/images/Quail%20Farm2.jpg
http://images.usatoday.com/news/_pho.../04/10/egg.jpg
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...s/duckpond.jpg
http://www.csulb.edu/~odinthor/Sheep.jpg
http://www.seldomseenfarm.co.uk/imag...se%20540-2.jpg
http://www.jamesranch.net/images/home_cow_red_cliff.jpg
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/.../mds_p7f11.JPG
http://www.drgobbler.com/images/turkeys.JPG
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/...0Q2LI/610x.jpg
http://www.cohabnet.org/images/img_issue3.2_lrg.jpg
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2008/01/389523.gif
http://www.colleenpatrick.com/blog/u...-13-782938.jpg
http://www.sprucedale.com/images/feedlot.jpg
http://www.saucierquail.com/farm4.jpg
http://www.fwi.co.uk/Assets/GetAsset...ItemID=3802569
http://www.banhdc.org/images/ch-hor-20060319.jpg
http://www.sheep101.info/Images/VAfeedlot.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...ss-fedCows.jpg
http://bentleycellars.com/db2/00200/...SheepRanch.JPG
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2...15_feedlot.jpg
http://www.agralarm.com/images/400_Texas_Broilers.jpg
http://www.circlekquailfarm.com/200%20x%20134.JPG
http://www.moonridgefarm.co.uk/USERI...re%20quail.jpg
http://www.therunningduckfarm.com/images/fieldtripw.jpg
http://www.agriproducts.com.au/verve...heep2_page.jpg
http://www.harveyquarterhorseranch.c.../allhorses.jpg
http://www.jphpk.gov.my/English/Asmawi%20M.%20Tahir.jpg
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Sheep.jpg
http://www.cps.gov.on.ca/french/ev10000/ev10703.jpg
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040212/wd6.jpg
http://www.mtexpress.com/2000/06-21-00/u21cov1.jpg
http://www.farm-energy.ca/IReF/uploa.../Lighting2.jpg
http://www.piercefarmwatch.org/image...lsurvivors.jpg
http://www.mountvernonfarm.net/images/cows1.jpg
http://www.biblicalresearchreports.c..._bare_dirt.jpg
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image..._bank416ap.jpg
http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/uima...MorrisBeef.jpg
http://www.alcockhorseranch.com/images/horse.gif
http://www.boerdurhamgoatfarm.com/im...oats-2-061.jpg
http://www.mountain-beef.com/images/sales.jpg
http://www.vivavegie.org/vvi/vva/vvi.../chickens.jpeg
http://www.kingbirdfarm.com/images/K...op%20house.jpg
http://www.prairiespringsranch.com/images/13.jpg
http://www.countryliving.com/cm/coun...DEN0805-de.jpg
http://www.specialtytravel.com/opera...ogos/18059.jpg

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:00 -0700, Dutch > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:43:26 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
>> goddess" > wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700
>>> Dutch > wrote:
>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be
>>>>> considered a truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us
>>>>> that life still has positive value to them
>>>
>>> It doesn't have to be a "positive" value. People can be motivated by
>>> negative values too ("revenge" could be an example).
>>
>> It's still positive in respect that they want to continue living.
>>
>>>> Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once they
>>>> exist.
>>>
>>> That's a logical point.
>>
>> It's a useless thing for anyone to ever make a point of except for the fact
>> that I made a mistake in terminology about a decade ago
>
>It is not a mistake in terminology

That's a blatant lie.

>, it is a fundamental error in logic
>which persists in your arguments to this day.
>
> and some people referred
>> to as the goos still dishonestly insist that I believe unconceived potential
>> future "beings" can somehow "suffer a loss" if "they" never experience life.
>> It's a lie, though I do consider the possibility that there could be multiple
>> lives somehow. I don't have a true belief, but do NOT believe unconceived
>> potential beings experience any sort of loss for not being born as livestock.
>> That doesn't mean I can't appreciate it when they are and experience decent
>> lives of positive value TO THEM. Eliminationists can't afford to consider that
>> aspect of human influence on animals, but anyone who favors decent AW over
>> elimination certainly should both consider and appreciate it. Appreciation for
>> that aspect is something eliminationists are opposed to, as you can see by the
>> goos' behavior. There are three goos, which include Goo himself, his boy "Dutch"
>> and his boy "Derek". In this thread we only have Goo and "Dutch", both of whom
>> are maniacally opposed to taking decent lives of livestock into consideration.
>> "Dutch" claims to have tried it once, and it made him feel "dirty". It made him
>> feel dirty to have appreciation for lives of positive value for the animals he
>> claims to consume. That's one of the ways he reveals that he does NOT favor AW
>> over elimination.
>
>That's a lie, and you KNOW it,

YOU claimed that it made you feel dirty, and if it really did then the fact
that it made you feel dirty is what reveals that you favor AW over elimination.
If you did not, then there would be no reason for it to make you feel dirty.
Instead you would be glad for the animals when they have lives of positive
value, not feel dirty for thinking about it. The only reason to feel dirty would
be if you're opposed to them having those lives of positive value, which
apparently you are. Duh!

>both of us favor continuing to raise
>livestock (over the elimination of livestock) AND we both favor the
>provision of good welfare over the neglect or abuse of animals (TWO
>separate and distinct choices)

You certainly act like you favor elimination over AW by opposing
appreciation for when livestock experience lives of positive value. ONLY
eliminationists have reason to do that.

You know that the elimination position is not respected by people who truly
favor AW and you know eliminationists are not respected by us. THAT is why the
Goober and you pretend (very very poorly) that you're elimination opponents.
Trying to win the respect which you don't deserve, of people who truly do favor
AW over elimination. It doesn't work with me because I see ways you reveal
yourself, plus I've been on to your lame game since you first started trying to
pretend to be an elimination opponent and first began claiming to eat meat. You
honestly admitted you were an eliminationist to begin with, and then later began
to pretend that you eat meat and have a completely different pov.

****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:

> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:00 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>
>> ****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
>>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:43:26 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
>>> goddess" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700
>>>> Dutch > wrote:
>>>>> ****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be
>>>>>> considered a truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us
>>>>>> that life still has positive value to them
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't have to be a "positive" value. People can be motivated by
>>>> negative values too ("revenge" could be an example).
>>>
>>> It's still positive in respect that they want to continue living.
>>>
>>>>> Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once they
>>>>> exist.
>>>>
>>>> That's a logical point.
>>>
>>> It's a useless thing for anyone to ever make a point of except for the fact
>>> that I made a mistake in terminology about a decade ago
>>
>> It is not a mistake in terminology
>
> That's a blatant lie.

It's not. It was not a mistake at all, ****wit. It was and is your
most deeply held belief:

Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
****wit - 08/01/2000


You originally said it was a "mistake" in terminology because you
claimed to view the "unborn animals" as "nothing", but of course that
was a lie:

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
****wit - 12/09/1999


Sorry, ****wit. It is *NOT* a "mistake in terminology", as everyone can
plainly see.

On Jul 30, 9:09*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> ****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:00 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>
> >> ****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
> >>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:43:26 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
> >>> goddess" > wrote:
>
> >>>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700
> >>>> Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>> ****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:
>
> >>>>>> * * * *The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be
> >>>>>> considered a truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us
> >>>>>> that life still has positive value to them
>
> >>>> It doesn't have to be a "positive" value. *People can be motivated by
> >>>> negative values too ("revenge" could be an example).
>
> >>> * * * It's still positive in respect that they want to continue living.
>
> >>>>> Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once they
> >>>>> exist.
>
> >>>> That's a logical point.
>
> >>> * * * It's a useless thing for anyone to ever make a point of except for the fact
> >>> that I made a mistake in terminology about a decade ago
>
> >> It is not a mistake in terminology
>
> > * * *That's a blatant lie.
>
> It's not. *It was not a mistake at all, ****wit. *It was and is your
> most deeply held belief:
>
> * * * * Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
> * * * * born if nothing prevents that from happening,
> * * * * that would experience the loss if their lives
> * * * * are prevented.
> * * * * ****wit - 08/01/2000
>
> You originally said it was a "mistake" in terminology because you
> claimed to view the "unborn animals" as "nothing", but of course that
> was a lie:
>
> * * * * The animals that will be raised for us to eat
> * * * * are more than just "nothing", because they
> * * * * *will* be born unless something stops their
> * * * * lives from happening. Since that is the case,
> * * * * if something stops their lives from happening,
> * * * * whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
> * * * * them of the life they otherwise would have had.
> * * * * ****wit - 12/09/1999
>
> Sorry, ****wit. *It is *NOT* a "mistake in terminology", as everyone can
> plainly see.

If someone makes two statements about what they believe that
contradict one another, then how do you tell which one is the lie?

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700, Dutch > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>
>> The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be considered a
>> truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us that life still has
>> positive value to them
>
>Those people already exist,

So do animals in similar positions.

>life only has value to a being once they
>exist. You need to read Salt's essay again, not that you will understand it.

I understand that commercially raised pigs are no longer filthily housed and
fed, and also that Salt didn't have any idea whether life is of positive value
to most modern commercially raised pigs or not. I'd also say it's safe to
believe that he wouldn't feel any livestock animals' lives were worth living the
same as you and the Goober and all other misnomer addicts, meaning that none of
you could make a realistic distinction between which lives seem to be negative
and which seem to be positive.

dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>
>>> The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be considered a
>>> truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us that life still has
>>> positive value to them
>>
>> Those people already exist,
>
> So do animals in similar positions.

Exactly my point. Those people who advocate the elimination of livestock
breeding, and I am not one of them, and you know I'm not, are NOT
advocating harming animals, or denying the "positive value" of animals'
lives, because they propose that those animals never exist in the first
place, and from the point of view of actual animals with interests, that
suggestion is neutral.


>> life only has value to a being once they
>> exist. You need to read Salt's essay again, not that you will understand it.
>
> I understand that commercially raised pigs are no longer filthily housed and
> fed, and also that Salt didn't have any idea whether life is of positive value
> to most modern commercially raised pigs or not. I'd also say it's safe to
> believe that he wouldn't feel any livestock animals' lives were worth living the
> same as you and the Goober and all other misnomer addicts, meaning that none of
> you could make a realistic distinction between which lives seem to be negative
> and which seem to be positive.

That's not the part of the essay I mean. The point you're missing is
that people like Salt, ARAs, vegans and PeTA, "eliminationists" are not
doing anything morally assailable by suggesting that livestock be
eliminated. No matter how "positive" the lives of existing livestock
might be, suggesting that the species be eliminated does those animals
no harm. Your "LoL" argument is circular, meaningless.

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:11:21 -0700, Dutch > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>
>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>> The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be considered a
>>>> truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us that life still has
>>>> positive value to them
>>>
>>> Those people already exist,
>>
>> So do animals in similar positions.
>
>Exactly my point. Those people who advocate the elimination of livestock
>breeding, and I am not one of them, and you know I'm not, are NOT
>advocating harming animals, or denying the "positive value" of animals'
>lives, because they propose that those animals never exist in the first
>place, and from the point of view of actual animals with interests, that
>suggestion is neutral.

To you people that is extremely significant, but to those of us who are not
misnomer addicts it's as meaningless as the fact that rocks aren't alive. The
fact that millions of animals will experience life in the future because humans
eat meat IS VERY significant, but the fact that veganism does nothing for
livestock is no more significant than the fact that dinosaurs are extinct. It's
the "best" that you people have, but meaningless to other people.

>>> life only has value to a being once they
>>> exist. You need to read Salt's essay again, not that you will understand it.
>>
>> I understand that commercially raised pigs are no longer filthily housed and
>> fed, and also that Salt didn't have any idea whether life is of positive value
>> to most modern commercially raised pigs or not. I'd also say it's safe to
>> believe that he wouldn't feel any livestock animals' lives were worth living the
>> same as you and the Goober and all other misnomer addicts, meaning that none of
>> you could make a realistic distinction between which lives seem to be negative
>> and which seem to be positive.
>
>That's not the part of the essay I mean. The point you're missing is
>that people like Salt, ARAs, vegans and PeTA, "eliminationists" are not
>doing anything morally assailable by suggesting that livestock be
>eliminated. No matter how "positive" the lives of existing livestock
>might be, suggesting that the species be eliminated does those animals
>no harm.

That's only the most significant thing to eliminationists.

>Your ...[appreciation for lives of positive value for millions of animals] argument
>is circular, meaningless.

ONLY to eliminationists. For people who honestly favor decent AW over
elimination lives of positive value for millions of animals is a VERY
significant aspect of the situation, in some part because it means AW
regulations are working successfully. The fact that you can't appreciate that
fact is one of the ways you reveal yourself.

****wit David Harrison, convicted felon living in Buford, GA, lied:


> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>
>> ****wit David Harrison, convicted felon living in Buford, GA, lied:
>>
>>> The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be considered a
>>> truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us that life still has
>>> positive value to them
>>
>> Those people already exist,
>
> So do animals in similar positions.

No. You're talking - you have *always* been blabbering - about "future
farm animals." Stop lying.



>> life only has value to a being once they
>> exist. You need to read Salt's essay again, not that you will understand it.
>
> I understand that

You *should* understand, but fail to understand, that "getting to
experience life" is not a benefit.

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:51:52 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:40:36 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>
>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>> The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be considered a
>>>> truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us that life still has
>>>> positive value to them
>>>
>>>Those people already exist,
>>
>> So do animals in similar positions.
>
>No.

LOL!!! The idea that there are no animals in similar positions is so stupid
it's hilarious Goo.

>>>life only has value to a being once they
>>>exist. You need to read Salt's essay again, not that you will understand it.
>>
>> I understand that commercially raised pigs are no longer filthily housed and
>>fed, and also that Salt didn't have any idea whether life is of positive value
>>to most modern commercially raised pigs or not. I'd also say it's safe to
>>believe that he wouldn't feel any livestock animals' lives were worth living the
>>same as you and the Goober and all other misnomer addicts, meaning that none of
>>you could make a realistic distinction between which lives seem to be negative
>>and which seem to be positive.
>
>You *should* understand, but fail to understand, that "getting to
>experience life" is not a benefit.

It often appears that it is a benefit Goob so if you want people to think
something prevents it from being one, YOU need to try to explain what you want
people to think prevents it. Try explaining what you want people to think
prevents you from benefitting from experiencing your own life, Goo. Go:


(correct prediction: the Goober not only can't explain what he thinks is
preventing him from benefitting, but he's ashamed to even attempt to explain)

****wit David Harrison, convicted felon living in Buford, GA, lied:

> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:51:52 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> ****wit David Harrison, convicted felon living in Buford, GA, lied:
>>
>>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>
>>>> ****wit David Harrison, convicted felon living in Buford, GA, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be considered a
>>>>> truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us that life still has
>>>>> positive value to them
>>>>
>>>> Those people already exist,
>>>
>>> So do animals in similar positions.
>>
>> No. You're talking - you have *always* been blabbering - about "future farm animals." Stop lying.
>
> LOL!!! The idea that

You were *only* talking about future farm animals, Goo.

****wit David Harrison, convicted felon living in Buford, GA, lied:

>>>>> The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be considered a
>>>>> truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us that life still has
>>>>> positive value to them
>>>>
>>>> Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once they exist. You need to read Salt's essay again, not that you will understand it.
>>>
>>> So do animals in similar positions.
>>
>> No.
>
> LOL!!! The idea that

No.



>> You *should* understand, but fail to understand, that "getting to
>> experience life" is not a benefit.
>
> It often appears that it is a benefit

No. Existence *never* is, or appears to be, a benefit, ****wit. This
is proved beyond rational dispute. Existence *never* is a benefit to an
entity, ****wit - it is the condition required to receive any benefit,
but it is not itself a benefit. This is proved, ****wit.

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:40:19 -0700, Goo confirmed my prediction:

>On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:55:52 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:51:52 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:40:36 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be considered a
>>>>>> truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us that life still has
>>>>>> positive value to them
>>>>>
>>>>>Those people already exist,
>>>>
>>>> So do animals in similar positions.
>>>
>>>No.
>>
>> LOL!!! The idea that there are no animals in similar positions is so stupid
>>it's hilarious Goo.
>>
>>>>>life only has value to a being once they
>>>>>exist. You need to read Salt's essay again, not that you will understand it.
>>>>
>>>> I understand that commercially raised pigs are no longer filthily housed and
>>>>fed, and also that Salt didn't have any idea whether life is of positive value
>>>>to most modern commercially raised pigs or not. I'd also say it's safe to
>>>>believe that he wouldn't feel any livestock animals' lives were worth living the
>>>>same as you and the Goober and all other misnomer addicts, meaning that none of
>>>>you could make a realistic distinction between which lives seem to be negative
>>>>and which seem to be positive.
>>>
>>>You *should* understand, but fail to understand, that "getting to
>>>experience life" is not a benefit.
>>
>> It often appears that it is a benefit Goob so if you want people to think
>>something prevents it from being one, YOU need to try to explain what you want
>>people to think prevents it. Try explaining what you want people to think
>>prevents you from benefitting from experiencing your own life, Goo. Go:
>
>No.

LOL!!! I know you can't even make an attempt to explain Goo, as I correctly
predicted and you just proved for me. LOL....

>>(correct prediction: the Goober not only can't explain what he thinks is
>>preventing him from benefitting, but he's ashamed to even attempt to explain)

On 7/31/2012 11:55 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:51:52 -0700, Goo wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:40:36 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>>
>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be considered a
>>>>> truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us that life still has
>>>>> positive value to them
>>>>
>>>> Those people already exist,
>>>
>>> So do animals in similar positions.
>>
>> No.
>
> LOL!!! The idea that there are no animals in similar positions is so stupid
> it's hilarious Goo.
>
>>>> life only has value to a being once they
>>>> exist. You need to read Salt's essay again, not that you will understand it.
>>>
>>> I understand that commercially raised pigs are no longer filthily housed and
>>> fed, and also that Salt didn't have any idea whether life is of positive value
>>> to most modern commercially raised pigs or not. I'd also say it's safe to
>>> believe that he wouldn't feel any livestock animals' lives were worth living the
>>> same as you and the Goober and all other misnomer addicts, meaning that none of
>>> you could make a realistic distinction between which lives seem to be negative
>>> and which seem to be positive.
>>
>> You *should* understand, but fail to understand, that "getting to
>> experience life" is not a benefit.
>
> It often appears that it is a benefit Goob so if you want people to think
> something prevents it from being one, YOU need to try to explain what you want
> people to think prevents it. Try explaining what you want people to think
> prevents you from benefitting from experiencing your own life, Goo. Go:
>
>
> (correct prediction: the Goober not only can't explain what he thinks is
> preventing him from benefitting, but he's ashamed to even attempt to explain)
>

****wit David Harrison, convicted felon living in Buford, GA, lied:

>>>>> The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be considered a
>>>>> truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us that life still has
>>>>> positive value to them
>>>>
>>>> Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once they exist. You need to read Salt's essay again, not that you will understand it.
>>>
>>> So do animals in similar positions.
>>
>> No.
>
> LOL!!! The idea that

No.



>> You *should* understand, but fail to understand, that "getting to
>> experience life" is not a benefit.
>
> It often appears that it is a benefit

No. Existence *never* is, or appears to be, a benefit, ****wit. This
is proved beyond rational dispute. Existence *never* is a benefit to an
entity, ****wit - it is the condition required to receive any benefit,
but it is not itself a benefit. This is proved, ****wit.